Pat Buckley
GT40s Supporter
Ask the little Dutch boy!
I want a divorce!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Not really sure Pete but Peter was much better looking and had a significantly higher pitched voice. I think they stuck the willy on the wrong one..
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Took me 24 hours to figure that out. I am getting slow. LOL.
Democrat logic
In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."
Kinda tough to add anything to that kind of logic...
In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."
Kinda tough to add anything to that kind of logic...
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Well Shut my mouth! Fancy trying to restrict ownership to only those who can afford it! How stupid is that?
Ron Earp
Admin
Well Shut my mouth! Fancy trying to restrict ownership to only those who can afford it! How stupid is that?
The US would be better off if entities (government - Republicans and Democrats alike, businesses, and individuals) would quit selling this "American Dream" idea that everyone should own a house. Everyone should NOT own a house. A house is a lot of work, costs a lot of money, and I'd hazard to estimate that at least a third of the people who own homes shouldn't. They can't keep the house up, don't want to keep the house up, and/or simply can't afford the house.
I kind of read it differently. Is it possible that they were referring to "not affording the 5% deposit" rather than the "house ownership?"
i.e. making 100% mortgages available to those who could not afford a deposit?
Eitherway, the reaction of our system was quite the reverse when the sh1t hit the fan. Far from offering somethimes 120% mortgages (now that IS (or was) a totally mad bad policy), you could not get a mortgage for love nor money unless you plonked down a minimum 0f 15-20%.
That has now eased to 5-10% but I think it will be a long time before we see 100% mortgages again, which is right.
Home ownership is a privilege and a reward for those that work damned hard for it, not a right.
For all others, there is the renting market.
i.e. making 100% mortgages available to those who could not afford a deposit?
Eitherway, the reaction of our system was quite the reverse when the sh1t hit the fan. Far from offering somethimes 120% mortgages (now that IS (or was) a totally mad bad policy), you could not get a mortgage for love nor money unless you plonked down a minimum 0f 15-20%.
That has now eased to 5-10% but I think it will be a long time before we see 100% mortgages again, which is right.
Home ownership is a privilege and a reward for those that work damned hard for it, not a right.
For all others, there is the renting market.
Mixed feelings on home ownership. I believed when the bill was passed back in the 1990s that home ownership would make people who were not known for responsibility would accept it, and become better members of society.
As we saw, that didn't happen.
As Ron says, home upkeep is expensive and if people don't want to do it, then they will drag the neighborhood down.
As Keith says, its hard work, and expensive.
I hope that the banks will require some 20% deposit before lending money on any property.
As we saw, that didn't happen.
As Ron says, home upkeep is expensive and if people don't want to do it, then they will drag the neighborhood down.
As Keith says, its hard work, and expensive.
I hope that the banks will require some 20% deposit before lending money on any property.
Hi
Your hope is already there
The credit crunch has forced virtually all lenders from issuing mortgages with a deposit of less than 15%, with some mortgage lenders still asking for a deposit of 25% before they will agree the mortgage,
The problem is the way the world has changed, our first house in 1984 was £30,000, I started saving as soon as I got a job as an apprentice. After a couple of hard years saving I was able to put a £6000 deposit on it so my mortgage was £26000. At the time I was in a well paid job with a wage of £10,000, so the mortgage was 2.6 times my salary.
Today that house is £280 000 if I wanted to put the same percentage deposit on it as in 1984 it would require a deposit of £56 000, the remaining mortgage would be £224 000 and with a well paid apprentice today getting £20 000 the mortgage would be 11.2 times my wage.
Effectively if I was starting out today I would not be able to afford the house I live in, not that I would ever get a mortgage for it.
We were the lucky ones, please understand it is not just a matter of working hard. There will be many many youngsters in the future who through no fault of their own and no matter how hard they work will never have the opportunity to own their own houses.
I forgot how real estate here in the UK exploded in price in the past 30 years. My early work experience (1977) brought me to Bidford on Avon, and a friend had a victorian house that he paid Sterling 17,000, and it needed some work. He sold it maybe 10 years later for over Sterling 200,000 (if my memory is right).
One of my takes was that the only way to accumulate any wealth in the UK was to invest in housing, and up the house when the job allowed. Then you sell the house when you retire, and downsize, living off the proceeds.
I agree and I don't know how the youngsters can manage if they are are not helped by their parents.
One of my takes was that the only way to accumulate any wealth in the UK was to invest in housing, and up the house when the job allowed. Then you sell the house when you retire, and downsize, living off the proceeds.
I agree and I don't know how the youngsters can manage if they are are not helped by their parents.
This is not just a Brittish phenomenon....I saw this constantly as I worked with high school students. This is probably the first generation that seems to have no hope of having a better life than their parents. The recent downturn in the economy, the weak job market, and the new "restrictions" on granting credit have provided no new hope, either. Young people in the U.S. who are trapped in low wage jobs might manage if two or three of them share a small apartment, but the "dream" of home ownership seems to be a pipe-dream to most of this generation.
A sad situation, truly.....the economic chasm between the rich and the poor seems to be getting wider, the middle class is doomed, I fear. Home ownership might well become an issue reserved for the priveleged class. I truly do understand why the wealthy are all living in gated communities in Houston....right outside the gates there are homeless, drug addicted, vagrants (who probably owned their own homes before the recent collapse). Crime has always been, IMHO, related more to poverty than to disregard for the law, self-survival is a strong instinct!
Doug
As I have said, its the lack of jobs. Then there is the wage disparity. I am not in favour of superstar status for big Corp. execs, and their corresponding pay. I can agree with entrepreneurs who pay themselves big salaries, and treat their people fairly.
Another issue has been the jobs going south and east. Just when the Mexicans were starting to get going and improve themselves, along comes China and takes their jobs.
We need a real rethink about how to structure the economy, and where we will find jobs for all of these folks. But who is doing that?
Another issue has been the jobs going south and east. Just when the Mexicans were starting to get going and improve themselves, along comes China and takes their jobs.
We need a real rethink about how to structure the economy, and where we will find jobs for all of these folks. But who is doing that?
Doug +1
No better argument as to why we don't need a divorce but need to understand our differences and work together to help the growing numbers that are going to need it.
We have made a start in the UK with a Liberal Conservative government its not going to be easy but it needs to work.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
domtoni, the above is a quote someone made about Chris Dodd, Al said that as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."
So Al did Senator Dodd say that or are you giving missleading information again?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
The first quote was a statement someone made about Senator Dodd, the right wing post you show took that quote someone made about Chris Dodd and made it sound like he actually said it.
Again, show me were he actually said “passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it.“
and not from just another right wing, missleading, half truth web site.
Again, show me were he actually said “passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it.“
and not from just another right wing, missleading, half truth web site.
Last edited:
Jim, just a simple reflection. I went looking for the original quote, and guess what, couldn't find it on the main stream media. One source said it was a sarcastic remark made by a blogger.
But the source of that comment had to be somewhere, and no one has published it except the right wing media. Why?
But the source of that comment had to be somewhere, and no one has published it except the right wing media. Why?
